Highly rated recruits

[Sexy Leather]

If I may be so bold as to summarize Solly's points:

1.  Physical ability--regardless of where a recruit comes from, only takes him so far.
2.  Coachability--meaning he listens, absorb and then executes what his coaches want him to do on and off the field.
3.  Work ethic--a player coming into an FBS school needs to work incredibly hard just to see the field.
4.  System fit--players tend to have a certain game and the key is finding the players who can do what you (as a coach) ask.
5.  Team first--kids that put the needs of the team ahead of their own personal stats is an under-rated quality.
6.  Environment--a player steps on campus there is no telling what direction he'll take (lots of distractions for 18 year olds).
7.  Great coaching--Ndamukong Suh...a putz under Callahan and an All-American under Pelini.

To the these points only one, 1., can actually be measured by the star system or recruiting services because they simply aren't around the recruits 24/7 to know what they're really like.

[Valiantsailor]

Ndamukong Suh...a putz under Callahan and an All-American under Pelini

Maybe, but he was a 4*.  Not chump change.

[Omaha_Phil]

If I may be so bold as to summarize Solly's points:

1.  Physical ability--regardless of where a recruit comes from, only takes him so far.
2.  Coachability--meaning he listens, absorb and then executes what his coaches want him to do on and off the field.
3.  Work ethic--a player coming into an FBS school needs to work incredibly hard just to see the field.
4.  System fit--players tend to have a certain game and the key is finding the players who can do what you (as a coach) ask.
5.  Team first--kids that put the needs of the team ahead of their own personal stats is an under-rated quality.
6.  Environment--a player steps on campus there is no telling what direction he'll take (lots of distractions for 18 year olds).
7.  Great coaching--Ndamukong Suh...a putz under Callahan and an All-American under Pelini.

To the these points only one, 1., can actually be measured by the star system or recruiting services because they simply aren't around the recruits 24/7 to know what they're really like.

I know we disagree from time to time, but do you read everything you write?

Why can a coach (who is a talent evaluator when the kid is still in hs) take all of these things into account but the evaluators from Rivals for example, can't?

Agreed the rating systems don't generally take into account system and it's hard to judge how a guy will react to college parties/girls. 

The ratings do take into account work ethic, coachability and work ethic.  Read some of the bios, it often comments on these qualities specifically. 

Suh was hardly a putz, but yes, Bo can coach defense far better than BC, is that really a surprise to anyone?

[Solly]

Call me old-fashioned, but it seems clear to me that a college Head Coach might be just a tad more qualified to evaluate a player than a Rivals "evaluator", particularly within the context of his team's needs.

(What are the qualifications to become an "evaluator", anyway?)

[Omaha_Phil]

Call me old-fashioned, but it seems clear to me that a college Head Coach might be just a tad more qualified to evaluate a player than a Rivals "evaluator", particularly within the context of his team's needs.

(What are the qualifications to become an "evaluator", anyway?)

How does need change how good a particular recruit is at his position?  I guess if you run a different system it would matter, but we run similar schemes to most teams.

Even if a coach is more qualified (and likely they are in general) does that mean the recruiting evaluators aren't qualified? 

I'd guess most evaluators (in this era) are ex-players and coaches at some level that do nothing but watch players. 

[Solly]

Call me old-fashioned, but it seems clear to me that a college Head Coach might be just a tad more qualified to evaluate a player than a Rivals "evaluator", particularly within the context of his team's needs.

(What are the qualifications to become an "evaluator", anyway?)

How does need change how good a particular recruit is at his position?  I guess if you run a different system it would matter, but we run similar schemes to most teams.

Even if a coach is more qualified (and likely they are in general) does that mean the recruiting evaluators aren't qualified?  

I'd guess most evaluators (in this era) are ex-players and coaches at some level that do nothing but watch players.  

Need for a proper fit in a specific system dictates how good the player will be at that position in that system. And no, Nebraska's schemes really aren't nearly as similar to "most teams" as you suggest.

Most evaluators employed by the services are NOT ex-players, scouts, or coaches. A few of the services employ such people at some level, but very few of the actual player evaluations are actually carried out by them. Add to this the entirely superficial knowledge they have of both the recruit and the college teams looking at them, and you'll find very little reason to place all that much faith in their ratings and rankings.

[Sexy Leather]

I know we disagree from time to time, but do you read everything you write?

Why can a coach (who is a talent evaluator when the kid is still in hs) take all of these things into account but the evaluators from Rivals for example, can't?

Agreed the rating systems don't generally take into account system and it's hard to judge how a guy will react to college parties/girls. 

The ratings do take into account work ethic, coachability and work ethic.  Read some of the bios, it often comments on these qualities specifically. 

Suh was hardly a putz, but yes, Bo can coach defense far better than BC, is that really a surprise to anyone?

The whole point of my post was to demonstrate that success with a college football team goes far beyond talent.  I demonstrated there are numerous other variables, which in addition to talent, must be present for a team to have championship level success.

[74Hunter]

A major part of the problem is that services like Rivals places starts on how likely they think that a player will make it to the NFL.

And, recruiting services have never taken into consideration the style of play of a certain team, that's why TO usually had classes that weren't as highly rated as the FSUs, Colorados, and Miamis, but he won his fair share of games and MNCs.

A player such as Aaron Taylor was not highly rated, but he fit our system well, and ended up with the Outland. Scott Frost was a safety at Stanford (and the NFL) yet led us to a MNC at QB.

[Wingback Reverse]

...and Jeff Kinney would have been a 2* at best if Rivals, Scout, etc. had existed in 1967 when he graduated from high school.  Although he was an All State High School player, we all know what these "braniacs" think of kids from small town high schools (especially in areas they perceive don't produce outstanding talent).  Most of those self-proclaimed "experts" probably have never even heard of McCook, Nebraska.  By all accounts though, he had an outstanding career as a 3-year starter at Nebraska (positively effecting the outcome of what some regard as the greatest college football game ever played), was a first round NFL selection, and went on to play four or five years in the league.

Many, many similar instances occur each and every recruiting cycle.  Heck, if stars meant everything, I'm not sure why we even go through the formality of playing these games.  Let's just sit down on Saturday mornings and see which team has the most "stars" associated with the players on their team and then declare them the winner!
   

[Omaha_Phil]

...and Jeff Kinney would have been a 2* at best if Rivals, Scout, etc. had existed in 1967 when he graduated from high school.  Although he was an All State High School player, we all know what these "braniacs" think of kids from small town high schools (especially in areas they perceive don't produce outstanding talent).  Most of those self-proclaimed "experts" probably have never even heard of McCook, Nebraska.  By all accounts though, he had an outstanding career as a 3-year starter at Nebraska (positively effecting the outcome of what some regard as the greatest college football game ever played), was a first round NFL selection, and went on to play four or five years in the league.

Many, many similar instances occur each and every recruiting cycle.  Heck, if stars meant everything, I'm not sure why we even go through the formality of playing these games.  Let's just sit down on Saturday mornings and see which team has the most "stars" associated with the players on their team and then declare them the winner!
   

At least you didn't go way overboard/extreme!  Guessing what on person from the '60's would have been rated and then extrapolating that to "many, many similar instances" and we don't even have to play the games...way to keep this a rational conversation.

I'm pretty certain, despite the strawman argument to the contrary that people keep putting up, no one on this site has said that stars/rankings mean everything.  No one has ever said the rankings are perfect.  No one has ever said underevaluated kids (like those from a McCook for example) can't/don't make it big.   

Did I cover all of your strawman arguments?

What people are saying is simple, in today's era the rating companies (yes, they are out to make a profit and that no doubt influences specific recruits from time to time) do a pretty good job evaluating the majority of kids, especially those in the higher populated cities that tend to produce, historically speaking, great players. 

If all the companies put a kid at a 2 star or a 5 star, there is a good chance the kid is going to perform like that (barrind injuries).  Are there surprises?  Of course.  And we do see lots of 3 star kids make it big...because there are literally thousands and thousands of kids ranked as 3 stars. 

I prefer to look at the offer list as opposed to the star ranking as a good indicator of how people evaluate a kid.  The higher rated kids generally have an impressive offer list.

[Wingback Reverse]

A little sarcasm got under your fingernails a bit, Phil?

I don't recall saying you or anybody else saw the "Star System" as perfect.  What I am saying is that I put very little, to no, emphasis on it.  Not only do I see the system as not perfect, I personally question whether there is much value to it at all, aside from making a whole lot of money for the perpetrators.  Let's be perfectly honest, the system exists for one reason and one reason only...to make money!

Yes, it is fun to see what the supposed "experts" think of our recruiting class, but I certainly don't hang on every word they say like some do.  And I certainly don't have a melt down when they rate a Nebraska class 35th in the nation.  Frankly, I couldn't give a twit about where they rate our recruiting class.  If our needs were filled with quality individuals, who have some good untapped raw talent and are coachable, then I give the class a solid rating.

Your comment regarding "who is offering" certainly is well-taken, however.  If a certain kid is offered by USC, Florida, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma and Michigan, then I would certainly make the assumption that he probably has some potential to become a pretty darned good football player. 

But I go back time-and-time again to the 2* defensive player who had commited to Frank Solich at Ohio three or four years ago when Carl Pelini was on the staff there.  When Bo got the job at Nebraska and brought Carl with him, Carl started recruiting him to Nebraska.  In a short amount of time, Bob Stoops at Oklahoma decided maybe he had better take a look at the kid.  When Ohio State noticed Oklahoma's sudden interest, they got involved (the player was from Ohio).  Eventually, the kid ended up signing a letter of intent to Ohio State.  On signing day, either Rivals or Scout showed him as a 3* and the other rated him as a 4*.  Interesting how a kid cam go from a 2* recruit when only Ohio University was interested in him, to a 4* star recruit when Nebraska, Oklahoma and Ohio State are interested in him.  Especially when he hasn't played a single down of high school football during that time frame.

Heck, I could look at who is interested in a kid and assign a star rating to him based on "who is offering" and probably be just as accurate as Scout and Rivals are! 

[Jarhead Husker]

...and Jeff Kinney would have been a 2* at best if Rivals, Scout, etc. had existed in 1967 when he graduated from high school.  Although he was an All State High School player, we all know what these "braniacs" think of kids from small town high schools (especially in areas they perceive don't produce outstanding talent).  Most of those self-proclaimed "experts" probably have never even heard of McCook, Nebraska.  By all accounts though, he had an outstanding career as a 3-year starter at Nebraska (positively effecting the outcome of what some regard as the greatest college football game ever played), was a first round NFL selection, and went on to play four or five years in the league.

Many, many similar instances occur each and every recruiting cycle.  Heck, if stars meant everything, I'm not sure why we even go through the formality of playing these games.  Let's just sit down on Saturday mornings and see which team has the most "stars" associated with the players on their team and then declare them the winner!
   

I agree that stars don't mean everything. Just look at the Longhorns for an example of that. But that doesn't mean they mean nothing either.  Like many things, the truth is somewhere in between. A lot of the players these so called experts rate high are worth the rating. Tommie Frazier was ranked near the top as was Crouch and Ahman Green, so all the rankings aren't crap.

[Jarhead Husker]

A little sarcasm got under your fingernails a bit, Phil?

I don't recall saying you or anybody else saw the "Star System" as perfect.  What I am saying is that I put very little, to no, emphasis on it.  Not only do I see the system as not perfect, I personally question whether there is much value to it at all, aside from making a whole lot of money for the perpetrators.  Let's be perfectly honest, the system exists for one reason and one reason only...to make money!

Yes, it is fun to see what the supposed "experts" think of our recruiting class, but I certainly don't hang on every word they say like some do.  And I certainly don't have a melt down when they rate a Nebraska class 35th in the nation.  Frankly, I couldn't give a twit about where they rate our recruiting class.  If our needs were filled with quality individuals, who have some good untapped raw talent and are coachable, then I give the class a solid rating.

Your comment regarding "who is offering" certainly is well-taken, however.  If a certain kid is offered by USC, Florida, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma and Michigan, then I would certainly make the assumption that he probably has some potential to become a pretty darned good football player. 

But I go back time-and-time again to the 2* defensive player who had commited to Frank Solich at Ohio three or four years ago when Carl Pelini was on the staff there.  When Bo got the job at Nebraska and brought Carl with him, Carl started recruiting him to Nebraska.  In a short amount of time, Bob Stoops at Oklahoma decided maybe he had better take a look at the kid.  When Ohio State noticed Oklahoma's sudden interest, they got involved (the player was from Ohio).  Eventually, the kid ended up signing a letter of intent to Ohio State.  On signing day, either Rivals or Scout showed him as a 3* and the other rated him as a 4*.  Interesting how a kid cam go from a 2* recruit when only Ohio University was interested in him, to a 4* star recruit when Nebraska, Oklahoma and Ohio State are interested in him.  Especially when he hasn't played a single down of high school football during that time frame.

Heck, I could look at who is interested in a kid and assign a star rating to him based on "who is offering" and probably be just as accurate as Scout and Rivals are! 

I don't obsess about "Stars" either. But according to your theory that you "question whether there is much value to it at all", there should be no correlation between recruiting rankings based on "stars" to on the field success. Is that truly the case? If you broke down the stats on that theory would it hold up?  Sure there would be exceptions like Texas recently, but would the norm show they are not linked? 

[helenahusker]

There should really be a sticky in the Recruiting Forum for this kind of thread!   

[BubbliciousRed]

There's a great article in the  2/6/12 ESPN the Mag about this subject.  Basically says there is no correlation between class rankings and on field performance.